Need some advice. I just bought the 16-35. Should I return it and wait for reviews of 14-24?

Which version? 16-35 ii?? I'd hang on to that for now, you could always sell it if and when the 14-24 surfaces.

Yes, it's the 16-35 ii. That's the direction I was leaning towards. Must have been experiencing some buyers remorse. I just received this lens and then saw rumors on the 14-24. Thanks.

They are/will be different beasts... For which reason the 14-24 if and when it materializes will not be a replacement for the 16-35II ...canon will continue to produce 16-35II and continue to charge ~$1399+.

Personally I find the 16-35II a bit more versatile...might switch if the 14-24 is insanely sharper (not marginally).

I also prefer to use and enjoy things I have in real world now and not wait for the next best thing coming out perpetually in the next few months. That's just me

So I was wondering: let's say Canon announces a 17-40 f/4 L IS instead of the 14-24 f/2.8How many of you will be happier (not just happy for Canon or happy in general for humankind- I mean will seriously plan to buy it)?Nikon did it- can't be out of the question, and will probably cost similar to the 16-35 IIWould you prefer a 17-40 f/4 IS or a 14-24 f/2.8?

IS is welcome, but what I would really like is a 17-40L ii that is tack sharp on the corners with little distortion. Currently, if I take group shots and have people at the ends, the lens makes a 170lb man look like 340lb... I am still looking for the person that appreciates those kinds of "embellishments".

So I was wondering: let's say Canon announces a 17-40 f/4 L IS instead of the 14-24 f/2.8How many of you will be happier (not just happy for Canon or happy in general for humankind- I mean will seriously plan to buy it)?Nikon did it- can't be out of the question, and will probably cost similar to the 16-35 IIWould you prefer a 17-40 f/4 IS or a 14-24 f/2.8?

IS is welcome, but what I would really like is a 17-40L ii that is tack sharp on the corners with little distortion. Currently, if I take group shots and have people at the ends, the lens makes a 170lb man look like 340lb... I am still looking for the person that appreciates those kinds of "embellishments".

You are not talking about lens distortion, you are talking about anamorphic projection distortion. That is easily corrected in post if you need to.

In PhotoShop you need to open an 8bit file as the distort filter doesn't work in 16bits up to at least the end of CS5 (not sure about CS6).

Open your file,1. go - filter > distort > spherize, set to 25%, make sure the option box is set to horizontal only, click OK2. then - select > all3. then edit > free transform, set W (width) to 91% and apply changes.

These figures work well for my 16-35 at 16, but you will need to mess about a little to find figures that work for your lenses. But follow this recipe and you 340lb guy will revert to close 170lb.

Thanks! Even if I will have to test it for the 24mm setting this was really useful information...

So I was wondering: let's say Canon announces a 17-40 f/4 L IS instead of the 14-24 f/2.8How many of you will be happier (not just happy for Canon or happy in general for humankind- I mean will seriously plan to buy it)?Nikon did it- can't be out of the question, and will probably cost similar to the 16-35 IIWould you prefer a 17-40 f/4 IS or a 14-24 f/2.8?

IS is welcome, but what I would really like is a 17-40L ii that is tack sharp on the corners with little distortion. Currently, if I take group shots and have people at the ends, the lens makes a 170lb man look like 340lb... I am still looking for the person that appreciates those kinds of "embellishments".

You are not talking about lens distortion, you are talking about anamorphic projection distortion. That is easily corrected in post if you need to.

In PhotoShop you need to open an 8bit file as the distort filter doesn't work in 16bits up to at least the end of CS5 (not sure about CS6).

Open your file,1. go - filter > distort > spherize, set to 25%, make sure the option box is set to horizontal only, click OK2. then - select > all3. then edit > free transform, set W (width) to 91% and apply changes.

These figures work well for my 16-35 at 16, but you will need to mess about a little to find figures that work for your lenses. But follow this recipe and you 340lb guy will revert to close 170lb.

DxO Optics Pro corrects it on RAW files, and the corrections are lens specific, meaning no messing about. DxO's ViewPoint software corrects as a PS/LR plugin (perhaps on RAW in LR, not sure).

Sort of - you select a volume anamorphosis correction from the menu, and it's applied based on the lens module. My point was you don't need to 'mess about' for different lenses or different focal lengths on a zoom. But of course, you're free to tweak the default settings as desired. For me, since DxO is my RAW converter of choice, there's no extra software needed, either. I do have CS6, but I prefer do make all the corrections possible on the RAW images, except for final downsizing (and sharpening as needed based on that).

IS is welcome, but what I would really like is a 17-40L ii that is tack sharp on the corners with little distortion. Currently, if I take group shots and have people at the ends, the lens makes a 170lb man look like 340lb... I am still looking for the person that appreciates those kinds of "embellishments".

I have a friend who is 6", 120 lbs and is losing weight in spite of eating more fat in a meal than I dare to eat in a month. Now that's someone who wouldn't mind some embellishment